Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Kent, that Cato Institute junk is the crap that lost the war for us

We're simply not going to agree on that* or on Jacob Sullum and very little on your infection hobbyhorse. Since your focus on that is on the poooor people, one would think that you'd see the benefits of free markets supported by both Cato and Reason, since it is free markets, not socialism/fascism that bring people out of poverty. It is socialism/fascism that bring about 'equality' - where everyone is 'equaly poor' and hence vulnerable to your infection theory, but I'm guessing that 'caring' comes from a different place.

Cato and Reason has upheld rights - including smokers' and vapers' rights from the start with no letting up. The fact that it hasn't been effective in what is a fascist landscape is no surprise. Doesn't make it wrong just 'ineffective' and then only somewhat. And imo, those views are gaining, although not near enough to effect real change... yet.

The 'ammo' that you say Levy, et al have given the Left is spurious - it is only within the last 5 or so years that leftists have figured out that libertarianism is their polar opposite, not conservatism. So we're seeing more attacks of Cato, Reason, Koch brothers, etc., from the 'smarter' group of lefists (not actually 'smart') vs. attacks on Heritage and Bush/Cheney - those are still favorites of the Media MattersMSNBC/HuffPo/NPR Left - who never go to source for their information. So if you look up the Levy info, you'll get scores of links attacking him. The fact that a court upheld his information on secondhand smoke vs. the EPA is rarely seen. It's like trying to find someone now - since Clinton - who doesn't believe Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemmings, let along finding scientific data that drops the percentage of it happening to near zero.

So you have people like Englishmick who think that to upend the media lock that they have on certain information is unbreakable. I understand the view, I just don't buy it and think things can change.

I know it won't matter to you, but don't expect another reply to you by me on this subject.... see my first words above * :- )
 

CarolT

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 22, 2011
803
1,439
Madison WI
Personally I'm not in favour of banning smoking in bars. There were plenty of choices and customers could have made their own choices.

Workplaces, not so much. They banned smoking in my place of work in the early 90's. They held a series of all-employee meetings to discuss it. There were a few mentions of SHS, but almost all the talk was about the smell. People stood up one after another and complained about it. They talked about how they went home in the evening and their families complained about the smell they took home with them. A few people asked for a section for smokers with big fans or whatever. Management decided that would be too expensive, and impractical since people worked in teams. I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of smokers who stood up and argued that their right to smoke trumped their coworkers right not to have to endure the smell of the smoke. That was my personal experience and it might not be universally the case.

I work with a guy who smokes and we travel a lot in the same truck. We smoked together for years so I don't complain about his smoking. If I go from a day of that to a non-smoking house people wrinkle up their noses and ask me if I started smoking again. It's real.



I formed an opinion. So did you.

The trouble is that the anti-smokers bypass customer choice altogether by pretending that bar and restaurant workers have no choice about where they work. That's why even Denny's separately ventilated smoking and non-smoking sections are smugly outlawed by smoking bans. That's why it's crucial to attack the health lies.

The pretext that smoking rooms are too expensive are usually lame. I worked in a place that actually did build a separately ventilated smoking room. This place had to deal with venting large molding machines on a regular basis, and they clearly didn't think that it was so tough to throw up a wall and ventilate a room. But that was FORBIDDEN by the statewide smoking ban! And at other places which made a comfortable place for smokers outside, those had to have walls torn out to make them uncomfortable and exposed to the weather, or else they'll be fined.

And I will absolutely never believe those people who claim that it supposedly stinks to non-smokers. I grew up in a home where nobody smoked, and on the few occasions where a smoker came over it smelled perfectly pleasant to me. I think this is a perfect example of false memories and emotions that have been brainwashed and conditioned into people by all those decades of systematic hate propaganda from the media. And look at the non-smokers who don't mind campfire or barbecue smoke (or mj smoke). Those linger too, but people haven't been hate-propagandized about them for decades.
 

CarolT

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 22, 2011
803
1,439
Madison WI
We're simply not going to agree on that* or on Jacob Sullum and very little on your infection hobbyhorse. Since your focus on that is on the poooor people, one would think that you'd see the benefits of free markets supported by both Cato and Reason, since it is free markets, not socialism/fascism that bring people out of poverty. It is socialism/fascism that bring about 'equality' - where everyone is 'equaly poor' and hence vulnerable to your infection theory, but I'm guessing that 'caring' comes from a different place.

Cato and Reason has upheld rights - including smokers' and vapers' rights from the start with no letting up. The fact that it hasn't been effective in what is a fascist landscape is no surprise. Doesn't make it wrong just 'ineffective' and then only somewhat. And imo, those views are gaining, although not near enough to effect real change... yet.

The 'ammo' that you say Levy, et al have given the Left is spurious - it is only within the last 5 or so years that leftists have figured out that libertarianism is their polar opposite, not conservatism. So we're seeing more attacks of Cato, Reason, Koch brothers, etc., from the 'smarter' group of lefists (not actually 'smart') vs. attacks on Heritage and Bush/Cheney - those are still favorites of the Media MattersMSNBC/HuffPo/NPR Left - who never go to source for their information. So if you look up the Levy info, you'll get scores of links attacking him. The fact that a court upheld his information on secondhand smoke vs. the EPA is rarely seen. It's like trying to find someone now - since Clinton - who doesn't believe Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemmings, let along finding scientific data that drops the percentage of it happening to near zero.

So you have people like Englishmick who think that to upend the media lock that they have on certain information is unbreakable. I understand the view, I just don't buy it and think things can change.

I know it won't matter to you, but don't expect another reply to you by me on this subject.... see my first words above * :- )

Free markets + socialism + fascism + Koch Brothers + Heritage = blah blah blah blah blah. All utterly irrelevant.

"Cato and Reason has upheld rights - including smokers' and vapers' rights from the start with no letting up." They're like the anti-smokers' ant bait for smokers - the dumb suckers taste the sugar and take it back to their nest, and then they all die because it's really poisoned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: caramel

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Free markets + socialism + fascism + Koch Brothers + Heritage = blah blah blah blah blah. All utterly irrelevant.

"Cato and Reason has upheld rights - including smokers' and vapers' rights from the start with no letting up." They're like the anti-smokers' ant bait for smokers - the dumb suckers taste the sugar and take it back to their nest, and then they all die because it's really poisoned.

Ok, one more just for fun. There's no sugar in capitalism - unless it's being traded. The 'sugar' in socialism is "helping and caring for the poor" and the unwitting who promote the idea, and that is really what poisons and kills people - millions of them - more than any infection.
 

englishmick

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 25, 2014
6,651
36,120
Naptown, Indiana
We're simply not going to agree on that* or on Jacob Sullum and very little on your infection hobbyhorse. Since your focus on that is on the poooor people, one would think that you'd see the benefits of free markets supported by both Cato and Reason, since it is free markets, not socialism/fascism that bring people out of poverty. It is socialism/fascism that bring about 'equality' - where everyone is 'equaly poor' and hence vulnerable to your infection theory, but I'm guessing that 'caring' comes from a different place.

Cato and Reason has upheld rights - including smokers' and vapers' rights from the start with no letting up. The fact that it hasn't been effective in what is a fascist landscape is no surprise. Doesn't make it wrong just 'ineffective' and then only somewhat. And imo, those views are gaining, although not near enough to effect real change... yet.

The 'ammo' that you say Levy, et al have given the Left is spurious - it is only within the last 5 or so years that leftists have figured out that libertarianism is their polar opposite, not conservatism. So we're seeing more attacks of Cato, Reason, Koch brothers, etc., from the 'smarter' group of lefists (not actually 'smart') vs. attacks on Heritage and Bush/Cheney - those are still favorites of the Media MattersMSNBC/HuffPo/NPR Left - who never go to source for their information. So if you look up the Levy info, you'll get scores of links attacking him. The fact that a court upheld his information on secondhand smoke vs. the EPA is rarely seen. It's like trying to find someone now - since Clinton - who doesn't believe Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemmings, let along finding scientific data that drops the percentage of it happening to near zero.

So you have people like Englishmick who think that to upend the media lock that they have on certain information is unbreakable. I understand the view, I just don't buy it and think things can change.

I know it won't matter to you, but don't expect another reply to you by me on this subject.... see my first words above * :- )

I wish I could discuss libertarianism with you, but it would be a little off topic.

As a one-time socialist who only became aware of libertarianism quite recently I find it fascinating. Drives me crazy because I’m sure it’s wrong but I just can’t find the flaw in the logic (I’m sure it’s there, just give me time). I did read once that ideological socialists who saw the light were more likely to move to libertarianism than to republicanism. And Ron Paul was good friends with Dennis Kucinich, which they both attributed to the fact that they recognized each other as standing for a belief rather than seeking power. There was a guy from Reason who appears on TV from time to time who introduced me to those ideas. And I read some really impressive stuff about pragmatic libertarianism by David Brin. Pragmatism is what I was shooting for in my comments on vaping activism. Do what has a chance of working rather than what is ideologically pure.

Here's a pearl from David Brin which I printed off and stuck on my office wall a few years ago. I glance at it sometimes when I'm hanging out on forums.

"Science has learned recently that contempt and indignation are addictive mental states. I mean physically and chemically addictive. Literally! People who are self-righteous a lot are apparently doping themselves rhythmically with auto-secreted surges of dopamine, endorphins and enkephalins. Didn't you ever ask yourself why indignation feels so good?"

Anyway, see you around.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
And I read some really impressive stuff about pragmatic libertarianism by David Brin.

Pragmatic libertarianism, as I mentioned in a much earlier post, is a near oxymoron. While some libertarians will use pragmatic arguments to make a point - for example, the drug war has costs billions of dollars and cost many lives, has resulted in too many people in prisons, etc. etc. ... the more libertarian argument from the axiom of libertarianism is that you don't initiate force against someone if they are not harming anyone (but themselves) - the 'ideological' argument.

To attempt to divorce the theory from the practical - which is basically what pragmatism says - if it works, then the theory doesn't matter - is a fallacy.

Rand:
"[Consider the catch phrase:] “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.” What is a theory? It is a set of abstract principles purporting to be either a correct description of reality or a set of guidelines for man’s actions. Correspondence to reality is the standard of value by which one estimates a theory. If a theory is inapplicable to reality, by what standard can it be estimated as “good”? If one were to accept that notion, it would mean: a. that the activity of man’s mind is unrelated to reality; b. that the purpose of thinking is neither to acquire knowledge nor to guide man’s actions. (The purpose of that catch phrase is to invalidate man’s conceptual faculty.)"

Peikoff:
"The two points central to the pragmatist ethics are: a formal rejection of all fixed standards—and an unquestioning absorption of the prevailing standards. [as we have seen in your: By now almost everyone thinks they are wrong. They are taken about as seriously as Luddites.] The same two points constitute the pragmatist approach to politics, which, developed most influentially by Dewey, became the philosophy of the Progressive movement in this country (and of most of its liberal descendants down to the present day).

As far as caramel's comment - the free market is only the free exchange between individuals. A person works to create values that can be exchanged with others who do the same. There is no 'objective' other than allowing the freedom to do so. Adam Smith points out that pursuing one's own values in a free market can (as if by invisible hand) benefit society as a whole, but caramel is right that there is no 'social' objective, but wrong in that there is a personal objective - pursue one's own goals. The free market allows that to occur. And I might add, that even if Adam Smith was wrong - that it wouldn't benefit society, (pragmatically), it is still the right thing to do.

One could say that Carl is saying - stop the pragmatism - stop arguing the science or the lies of the junk science - you only prop up the Anti's. One should be able to vape as long as it harms no one. (even if it harms oneself - which it doesn't.)
 
Last edited:

CarolT

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 22, 2011
803
1,439
Madison WI
Ok, one more just for fun. There's no sugar in capitalism - unless it's being traded. The 'sugar' in socialism is "helping and caring for the poor" and the unwitting who promote the idea, and that is really what poisons and kills people - millions of them - more than any infection.

By the way, do you realize that despite the hysteria over Koch Industries lobbying against declaring formaldehyde a human carcinogen, none of the industry experts uttered so much as a peep of protest about the NTP blaming formaldehyde for nasopharyngeal carcinoma while ignoring the role of Epstein-Barr virus? "[A]ll types of NPC, regardless of histological type or differentiation contain clonal episomal EBV genomes, express specific EBV genes and are a clonal expansion of EBV-infected cells." That means there would be no nasopharyngeal carcinoma without Epstein-Barr virus. Furthermore, in the IARC update on formaldehyde, there was a cumulative total of one study that even looked at EBV, and it found a whopping 170-fold increased risk from EBV. With an RR that high, even small differences in the prevalence of infection between exposure groups, or failure to identify all EBV-positives, can easily result in bogus "risks" higher than the paltry ones claimed for formaldehyde. The NTP's only study with an EBV-related parameter considered was "diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis," which is clearly insufficient.

Not one of the NTP "experts" had any background whatsoever in the role of viruses in human cancer, and neither did any of the industry's experts. They are all just a sealed-off little clique of charlatans dedicated to looking only at chemicals and nothing else - just like you! - and that's why the NTP got away with pretending that formaldehyde is a human carcinogen. Nice going! That's why your ilk are exactly what we need to get out of the way, and the sooner the better. Your blinkered incompetence is the real cause of the junk science problem. And don't pretend you can bluster it away by spouting off about how great capitalism is or how the poor should be left to starve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: caramel

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
And don't pretend you can bluster it away by spouting off about how great capitalism is or how the poor should be left to starve.

No one said the poor should be left to starve - only that they starve to death under socialism/fascism and can strive under capitalism IF they are not drawn in by the propaganda of the 'caring Left' - who only 'care' about their votes.

And:
By the way, do you realize that despite the hysteria over Koch Industries lobbying against declaring formaldehyde a human carcinogen, none of the industry experts uttered so much as a peep of protest about the NTP blaming formaldehyde for nasopharyngeal carcinoma while ignoring the role of Epstein-Barr virus?

So... Koch's findings are responsible for 'the industry experts' NOT using the fact that formaldehyde is NOT a human carcinogen (as I've stated elsewhere, btw)? It would be hard to find a more convoluted argument, expect perhaps in your earlier, present and future posts. I can't wait! :facepalm: :lol:
 
Last edited:

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
A coal mine is a workplace too. Why do we allow coal (dust) there?

Because it furnishes energy for much of our world. Except the current president wants to "bankrupt the coal industry" - in his own words. Why do we allow wind farms to kill birds? Why don't we allow wind farms in Hyannisport? :facepalm: :laugh:
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
I disagree with this. I see a form of this routinely, but feel it is simply justification for not fighting the war, while thinking this battle can be won. If you think smoking politics is lost in court of public opinion, and can't be won, then I do not see how vaping can be won, except for some small scraps, which will be the EXACT SAME SCRAPS that smoking has, though (smoking is) arguably better in almost every way conceivable.

A prime example of the scraps I speak about is that no one is calling for a ban on smoking products. It's existence is not threatened on the planet. Yet, (some) vapers think that the existence of vaping products is threatened, and are doing what they can to prevent that threat. And yet, in doing so, there are factions within the vaping community that are clearly serving need for BV up on a silver platter. That is a sure way to ensure that vaping products survive an existential threat, but also will mean that the (legal) vaping market is, in reality, no different than the legal smoking market.

Quoting myself here cause I'd like to elaborate on the second paragraph and so fellow vapers can see just how much we are plausibly doing ANTZ work for ANTZ, but seemingly claiming it is "in the interest of all vapers."

The diacetyl (and acetoin) issues within the industry and labeling/full lab results are examples of situations where some vapers simply do not trust free market principles to address these items in a way a) that they are used to, and b) they they would like (for the entire industry to fall in line with). So, there is a call to eliminate certain ingredients from all supply and that labeling (by all vendors) and/or lab results provided by all vendors would be "reasonable" solutions that will benefit all consumers. The ONLY way to assure this happens is if there is a mandate in place on the open/legal market. And the only way, that I see, such a mandate taking shape is via regulation. If it were strictly self regulation, then a case could be made to keep those things as is, and let free market handle who stays in business and who struggles/folds. But because so many are not used to an under regulated market, like exists for vaping, then free market principles don't go far enough. IOW, the mandate needs to be enforced for those people to feel comfortable (read as illusion of safety).

FDA puts forth a proposal that, in their own words, is designed to whittle down the market to a few companies who the FDA can more readily do business with on the legal/open market. This will make enforcement of certain mandates far easier than if there are 10,000 companies which have various ways of interpreting the various mandates (so far that is 4 or 5 primary items and about 300 or so additional considerations).

What some vapers are telling the world (mostly other vapers, but also vape companies and possibly local, state and national politicians) is that industry needs outside intervention to ensure certain items are mandated. In so doing, I don't think these vapers have expressed intent to whittle down the existing market, though there are statements by some that have implied this. Yet, the intent is there even if it is not expressed, simply by the notion that the industry needs system wide intervention. This is priming the industry to go with those that fall in line and those that do not deserve legitimate business due to their illegitimate practices.

IOW, some vapers really do want a group of Big Vapor companies to emerge, be successful, label products, assume quality/safety and provide a guarantee of sorts that vaping as an activity will be around for the foreseeable future. As if, that were in doubt.

What this clearly seems to neglect is, two things. First, that those Big Vapor companies will by despised by some. For sure ANTZ will take potshots at them forever and a day, and plausibly some vapers will hate on them at various times, because, well just look at today's market to see how vapers will actively hate on certain companies even while they have zero intention of buying their products. Thus, it could be even more whittled down, such that there are say 3 to 8 companies that provide all the products on the open/legal market and that have managed to navigate the FDA maze well enough to make a profit, plus managed to not upset a majority of vapers. Thus, no different than what exists for current cigarette market. And from this place (plus a whole lot along the way), it'll be easy to transform vaping culture into, well let's just say, those who already fully acknowledge that they are easy to manipulate and are deserving of the shaming that will inevitably come from being so loyal to companies that have clearly acknowledged that when things are done "wrong" consumers of the market are harmed.

Even while here in 2015, such harm is incredibly challenging to pinpoint.

Second thing that the Big Vapor path neglects is the underground market that will ensue, which will intentionally not cater to the illusions of safety and quality. How that market shakes out is perhaps impossible to predict, but that it will exist in a world where BV is accepted as legitimate way of doing business, is a certainty. Essentially, if anyone is DIY-ing in the years to come and those people (any of them) seek to help others with obtaining product in way they wish to produce, plus make a little money on the side, then the black market will be (wide) open for business. In essence, this will be a very good thing that is treated like a very horrible thing that it exists at all. Those poor poor vapers who aren't concerned with quality. Heaven help them. But keep in mind that kids won't be allowed to buy from the open/legal market (due to the most insane mandate of them all), and well, those who say they are all about protection, will have a hand in creating a situation, or market, that will challenge the perception(s) of protection every single day. A kid would be very wise to DIY and to provide friends with product, even while some hypocritical adults will frown upon this.

Once we are at the point where there are just a few scraps left and BV is in full control of the market (to the degree the government allows for), I'm sure newbie vapers then will wonder what it was like years ago when vaping started around 2015. I'm sure they'll be told that it was like the wild west and that people were being harmed all the time by unregulated products. And that now (or then), things are so much better that NJoy and Phillip Morris have merged to provide the best of what's around.
 
Last edited:

KattMamma

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2015
1,733
6,442
DFW Area, Texas
Quoting myself here cause I'd like to elaborate on the second paragraph and so fellow vapers can see just how much we are plausibly doing ANTZ work for ANTZ, but seemingly claiming it is "in the interest of all vapers."

The diacetyl (and acetoin) issues within the industry and labeling/full lab results are examples of situations where some vapers simply do not trust free market principles to address these items in a way a) that they are used to, and b) they they would like (for the entire industry to fall in line with). So, there is a call to eliminate certain ingredients from all supply and that labeling (by all vendors) and/or lab results provided by all vendors would be "reasonable" solutions that will benefit all consumers. The ONLY way to assure this happens if if there is a mandate in place on the open/legal market. And the only way, that I see, such a mandate taking shape is via regulation. If it were strictly self regulation, then a case could be made to keep those things as is, and let free market handle who stays in business and who struggles/folds. But because so many are not used to an under regulated market, like exists for vaping, then free market principles don't go far enough. IOW, the mandate needs to be enforced for those people to feel comfortable (read as illusion of safety).

FDA puts forth a proposal that, in their own words, is designed to whittle down the market to a few companies who the FDA can more readily do business with on the legal/open market. This will make enforcement of certain mandates far easier than if there are 10,000 companies which have various ways of interpreting the various mandates (so far that is 4 or 5 primary items and about 300 or so additional considerations).

What some vapers are telling the world (mostly other vapers, but also vape companies and possibly local, state and national politicians) is that industry needs outside intervention to ensure certain items are mandated. In so doing, I don't think these vapers have expressed intent to whittle down the existing market, though there are statements by some that have implied this. Yet, the intent is there even if it is not expressed, simply by the notion that the industry needs system wide intervention. This is priming the industry to go with those that fall in line and those that do not deserve legitimate business due to their illegitimate practices.

IOW, some vapers really do want a group of Big Vapor companies to emerge, be successful, label products, assume quality/safety and provide a guarantee of sorts that vaping as an activity will be around for the foreseeable future. As if, that were in doubt.

What this clearly seems to neglect is, two things. First, that those Big Vapor companies will by despised by some. For sure ANTZ will take potshots at them forever and a day, and plausibly some vapers will hate on them at various times, because, well just look at today's market to see how vapers will actively hate on certain companies even while they have zero intention of buying their products. Thus, it could be even more whittled down, such that there are say 3 to 8 companies that provide all the products on the open/legal market and that have managed to navigate the FDA maze well enough to make a profit, plus managed to not upset a majority of vapers. Thus, no different than what exists for current cigarette market. And from this place (plus a whole lot along the way), it'll be easy to transform vaping culture into, well let's just say, those who already fully acknowledge that they are easy to manipulate and are deserving of the shaming that will inevitably come from being so loyal to companies that have clearly acknowledged that when things are done "wrong" consumers of the market are harmed.

Even while here in 2015, such harm is incredibly challenging to pinpoint.

Second thing that the Big Vapor path neglects is the underground market that will ensue, which will intentionally not cater to the illusions of safety and quality. How that market shakes out is perhaps impossible to predict, but that it will exist in a world where BV is accepted as legitimate way of doing business, is a certainty. Essentially, if anyone is DIY-ing in the years to come and those people (any of them) seek to help others with obtaining product in way they wish to produce, plus make a little money on the side, then the black market will be (wide) open for business. In essence, this will be a very good thing that is treated like a very horrible thing that it exists at all. Those poor poor vapers who aren't concerned with quality. Heaven help them. But keep in mind that kids won't be allowed to buy from the open/legal market (due to the most insane mandate of them all), and well, those who say they are all about protection, will have a hand in creating a situation, or market, that will challenge the perception(s) of protection every single day. A kid would be very wise to DIY and to provide friends with product, even while some hypocritical adults will frown upon this.

Once we are at the point where there are just a few scraps left and BV is in full control of the market (to the degree the government allows for), I'm sure newbie vapers then will wonder what it was like years ago when vaping started around 2015. I'm sure they'll be told that it was like the wild west and that people were being harmed all the time by unregulated products. And that now (or then), things are so much better that NJoy and Phillip Morris have merged to provide the best of what's around.
I fear your vision is right (a lot of evidence suggests it is) but hope it is wrong.

One of the best posts I've read in a good while. Thank you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread